Mainecoonmaniac
Allowing Ads
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2009
- Messages
- 6,297
- Format
- Multi Format
I'm surprised you used that Arkay. The one I had did real number on the corners of my prints. I couldn't continue using it.
Hypo Clearing Agent?
Seeing the reference to brick in the toilet in this thread does introduce the idea of putting your prints in the cistern of your toilet for a few days. The changes of water should wash them quite well.
...So, technically it doesn't take much water volume to wash paper. The reason for running wash water is essentially to make sure that surface layer keeps getting automatically (vs manually filling and dumping) taken away and replaced with fresh water. But obviously in the process, a lot of water is wasted...
Would not occasional agitation of the water baths do the same thing as the running water?
It helps, but agitating the water bath doesn't replace the surface water layer with fresh water, just water with less thiosulfate. Obviously the more water you have in the tray the better this will work...
If you're using a progressive series of trays, a little sodium bicarbonate in the water will accelerate the diffusion of fixer. A figure of 300mg/L was recommended by Ryuji Suzuki in a pure-silver post in around 2005. It was based on old Kodak research, I think. The last couple of trays should not have the bicarbonate.
addition: this is after a rinse and use of ordinary HCA (plain sulphite or sulphite plus the usual couple of ingredients).
It really surprises me that in the entire history of photography, nobody has researched processing under drought conditions?! Was water that plentiful way back when? The Ilford film washing method and others have always been controversial. Does there not exist a definitive answer? Besides move out of California.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?